The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The United States: Is that a whimper I hear?
Richard_Dastardly
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
According to a new intelligence report, the dominance of the US may wane within the next twenty years or so.
At one time I might have welcomed this sort of news. With a less dominant US, I would've hoped we'd stop meddling in foreign affairs and focus on the issues at home. But, this article, regardless of how accurate the intelligence report may be, really frightens me.
What's your take on this? Is a wanning US a bad sign, or is it great that other regions are prospering enough to become major world powers? Is it innevitable? And, are we looking at 18th-19th century nationalistic/regionalistic idealism, economic empire building and warfare?
US global dominance 'set to wane'
US economic, military and political dominance is likely to decline over the next two decades, according to a new US intelligence report on global trends.
The National Intelligence Council (NIC) predicts China, India and Russia will increasingly challenge US influence.
It also says the dollar may no longer be the world's major currency, and food and water shortages will fuel conflict.
However, the report concedes that these outcomes are not inevitable and will depend on the actions of world leaders.
It will make sombre reading for President-elect Barack Obama, the BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says, as it paints a bleak picture of the future of US influence and power.
The US will remain the single most important actor but will be less dominant
Global Trends 2025
"The next 20 years of transition to a new system are fraught with risks," says Global Trends 2025, the latest of the reports that the NIC prepares every four years in time for the next presidential term.
Washington will retain its considerable military advantages, but scientific and technological advances; the use of "irregular warfare tactics"; the proliferation of long-range precision weapons; and the growing use of cyber warfare "increasingly will constrict US freedom of action", it adds.
Nevertheless, the report concludes: "The US will remain the single most important actor but will be less dominant."
Nuclear weapons use
The NIC's 2004 study painted a rosier picture of America's global position, with US dominance expected to continue.
But the latest Global Trends report says that rising economies such as China, India, Russia and Brazil will offer the US more competition at the top of a multi-polar international system.
NIC REPORT
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
The EU is meanwhile predicted to become a "hobbled giant", unable to turn its economic power into diplomatic or military muscle.
A world with more power centres will be less stable than one with one or two superpowers, it says, offering more potential for conflict.
Global warming, along with rising populations and economic growth will put additional strains on natural resources, it warns, fuelling conflict around the globe as countries compete for them.
"Strategic rivalries are most likely to revolve around trade, investments and technological innovation and acquisition, but we cannot rule out a 19th Century-like scenario of arms races, territorial expansion and military rivalries," the report says.
"Types of conflict we have not seen for a while - such as over resources - could re-emerge."
Such conflicts and resource shortages could lead to the collapse of governments in Africa and South Asia, and the rise of organised crime in Eastern and Central Europe, it adds.
And the use of nuclear weapons will grow increasingly likely, the report says, as "rogue states" and militant groups gain greater access to them.
But al-Qaeda could decay "sooner than people think", it adds, citing the group's growing unpopularity in the Muslim world.
"The prospect that al-Qaeda will be among the small number of groups able to transcend the generational timeline is not high, given its harsh ideology, unachievable strategic objectives and inability to become a mass movement," it says.
The NIC does, however, give some scope for leaders to take action to prevent the emergence of new conflicts.
"It is not beyond the mind of human beings, or political systems, [or] in some cases [the] working of market mechanisms to address and alleviate if not solve these problems," said Thomas Fingar, chairman of the NIC.
And, our correspondent adds, it is worth noting that US intelligence has been wrong before.
US economic, military and political dominance is likely to decline over the next two decades, according to a new US intelligence report on global trends.
The National Intelligence Council (NIC) predicts China, India and Russia will increasingly challenge US influence.
It also says the dollar may no longer be the world's major currency, and food and water shortages will fuel conflict.
However, the report concedes that these outcomes are not inevitable and will depend on the actions of world leaders.
It will make sombre reading for President-elect Barack Obama, the BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says, as it paints a bleak picture of the future of US influence and power.
The US will remain the single most important actor but will be less dominant
Global Trends 2025
"The next 20 years of transition to a new system are fraught with risks," says Global Trends 2025, the latest of the reports that the NIC prepares every four years in time for the next presidential term.
Washington will retain its considerable military advantages, but scientific and technological advances; the use of "irregular warfare tactics"; the proliferation of long-range precision weapons; and the growing use of cyber warfare "increasingly will constrict US freedom of action", it adds.
Nevertheless, the report concludes: "The US will remain the single most important actor but will be less dominant."
Nuclear weapons use
The NIC's 2004 study painted a rosier picture of America's global position, with US dominance expected to continue.
But the latest Global Trends report says that rising economies such as China, India, Russia and Brazil will offer the US more competition at the top of a multi-polar international system.
NIC REPORT
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
The EU is meanwhile predicted to become a "hobbled giant", unable to turn its economic power into diplomatic or military muscle.
A world with more power centres will be less stable than one with one or two superpowers, it says, offering more potential for conflict.
Global warming, along with rising populations and economic growth will put additional strains on natural resources, it warns, fuelling conflict around the globe as countries compete for them.
"Strategic rivalries are most likely to revolve around trade, investments and technological innovation and acquisition, but we cannot rule out a 19th Century-like scenario of arms races, territorial expansion and military rivalries," the report says.
"Types of conflict we have not seen for a while - such as over resources - could re-emerge."
Such conflicts and resource shortages could lead to the collapse of governments in Africa and South Asia, and the rise of organised crime in Eastern and Central Europe, it adds.
And the use of nuclear weapons will grow increasingly likely, the report says, as "rogue states" and militant groups gain greater access to them.
But al-Qaeda could decay "sooner than people think", it adds, citing the group's growing unpopularity in the Muslim world.
"The prospect that al-Qaeda will be among the small number of groups able to transcend the generational timeline is not high, given its harsh ideology, unachievable strategic objectives and inability to become a mass movement," it says.
The NIC does, however, give some scope for leaders to take action to prevent the emergence of new conflicts.
"It is not beyond the mind of human beings, or political systems, [or] in some cases [the] working of market mechanisms to address and alleviate if not solve these problems," said Thomas Fingar, chairman of the NIC.
And, our correspondent adds, it is worth noting that US intelligence has been wrong before.
At one time I might have welcomed this sort of news. With a less dominant US, I would've hoped we'd stop meddling in foreign affairs and focus on the issues at home. But, this article, regardless of how accurate the intelligence report may be, really frightens me.
What's your take on this? Is a wanning US a bad sign, or is it great that other regions are prospering enough to become major world powers? Is it innevitable? And, are we looking at 18th-19th century nationalistic/regionalistic idealism, economic empire building and warfare?
Richard_Dastardly on
0
Posts
Obama will probably curb the whole "OMG US DYING" trend a bit. I don't think it's going to be as drastic as they say, because our influence is the cause of many problems. I also agree with the very last part in that story.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
Then again, it isn't the end of the world. What's bad news for us will be good news for other people on the other side of the world. The worrisome part is how these populous countries choose to use their growing power and influence for the benefit/detriment of their people.
US dominance is the result of the weakness of other countries, which in turn results from war or governmental mismanagement. The fact that other countries are catching up to the United States economically is something to be celebrated, rather than mourned.
And, even if Obama proves to be a great statesman, his role as leader will only last 8 years. That, and he's only a single part of our government. He won't have carte blanche authority to steer the nation towards his greater vision. Plus, every president that comes after him will have just as much, if not more, impact on the direction the US takes.
As a side note, I'm fairly certain the Republicans will eventually gain control of either the executive or the legislative branches. People tend to get scared as threats loom overseas, and apparently we Americans think the GOP as masters of national security.
Everyone has nukes but that's not exactly a way to tactically show power in any way of thinking about it.
If we have good policies for the next 8 years, they'll stick.
I don't necessarily mean in eight years, but perhaps in sixteen years or twenty years. Maybe a bit longer. I really can't believe that voters of the near future having the collective memory to remember the total disaster 2000-2008 was, and voters might grow tired of the dominance of one party for too long a time. I mean, if the religious right and social conservatives could fuck the Republicans up so bad, then what about the extreme left wing, moveon.org faction of the Democratic party?
It's not necessarily the direct military capabilities of China or Russia that would be a threat. According to the article, we'd be facing threats of cyber-warfare and nuclear armed rogue states.
That is a very large IF.
Nobody can tell the future though we can look at history for guidance. Historically conflicts are what made the US grow in power, look what followed Pearl Harbor and 9/11. As long as there are serious threats in the world then America will continue to play strong. We don't take things lying down like our allies do.
As for the GOP... if Obama mishandles a catastrophe similar to a Bay of Pigs, Iranian Revolution, or Katrina then the door for the GOP will be wide open.
Outside the next decade or so it's pretty futile to discuss America's role as a political and economic power. It depends on a large number of factors, many of which we can barely fathom right now. Yes, in theory, the GOP (or the dems) may fuck shit up in 20, 30, 40 years. I think it's sort of silly to worry about that sort of thing now, though.
Long-term, it's not necessarily a bad thing if the US stops being a uniquely powerful hyper-entity on the world stage.
This isn't just people though. This is the National Intelligence Council, which is basically all the US intelligence combined.
This might prove innacurate, but it isn't something to completely disregard.
And yeah, it's impossible to tell what the next twenty years or so is gonna bring; however, the NIC was looking at current trends and probably using the last hundred or so years as a backdrop to figure out what's likely or not so likely to happen, and how different nations will react.
Edit:
There are things in the report that are innevitable.
1) Scarcity of resources
2) Overpopulation
3) Collapse of developing nations as the first 1&2 become critical.
Personally I think it's a great thing that other countries are rising and that it will once more be a unilateral world. I believe that the American people are at there best when challenged with competition. Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union we have become lackadaisical. Even though I don't agree with Obama on many things, I believe that having a charismatic leader can be just that little push that can jump start America to one up everyone else. We are at a crucial point in American history where we can be protectionist and hide or be open and challenge the world once more and show that America is the place of opportunities.
Our "competition" with the USSR resulted in proxy wars, nuclear proliferation, the constant threat of doom, and brutal puppet dictatorships in strategic regions. I don't think more than one superpower is necessarily a good thing, especially when coupled with overpopulation and its strain on resources.
That's interesting... but, has there ever been a time since the rise of nationalism when there hasn't been some form of a superpower/s? Even regional?
But you also need to look at the reason for a lot of those wars. During that time you did have both sides using countries as proxy wars but also at the same time it was era of decolonization which caused a lot of the civil wars during that time period.
And couple that with two extremely powerful nations striving to spread/contain two polar political ideologies. Korea and Vietnam didn't happen solely because of decolonization.
Perhaps we won't have a cold war like we did in the past, but a lack of resources is probably going to lead to the collapse of many developing countries. Which is gonna lead to more civil war and the meddling/counter-meddling of rival superpowers.
Lot's of folks are tired of fearmongering. The only good thing that may come for such tactics would be to get people off their ass to do something productive.
So would you support a strong UN with actual teeth that could take up these future problems? Because we are definitely not going back to a unilateral position anytime soon. And the UN would probably be the best option if we were able to give it actual power.
There wasn't much fearmongering in this at all. It's not like: USA: EPIC FAIL. WORLD LOLZ.
In the past, not so much. In the last couple of years, fuck yes.
But how is it possible when nearly every member state puts its own interests ahead of the welfare of others?
All hail Skynet, they know whats best for ALL of us.